民事诉讼中的电子证据

随着Internet的迅猛发展和网络社会的到来,人们已经感受到网络带来的方便与快捷。与此同时,网络侵权、计算机犯罪、电子商务纠纷案件也大量涌现出来,而目前我国电子证据方面的立法还相对滞后,司法实践中运用电子证据的规则不一.因此,加快电子证据立法、正确界定电子证据的法律地位已迫在眉睫。     

论强奸案件被害人品格证据的可采性

品格证据规则作为基本证据规则长期存在于英美的刑事诉讼实践中,其核心在于避免刑事审判中不公正的偏见对案件客观事实的发现造成不利影响,但由于此项制度的矛盾性与复杂性,对其争议颇多。美国刑事诉讼中长期存在的"强奸盾牌条款",对强奸案件中被害人品格名声采用了有限可采的办法,即一般不采用,但存在例外规定。基于证据性质、被害人保护等诸多因素,我国应该明确强奸案件中被害人品格证据不具有可采性。     

刑事诉讼中私人不法取得证据之证据能力研究

私人不法取证是私人以非法侵犯被取证人合法权利的方式取得证据的行为。私人不法取证本质上是一种侵权行为，但与公权机关非法取证存在诸多不同。关于私人不法取得的证据是否具有证据能力的不应排除说、法秩序一元说、权衡理论等诸家学说中，权衡理论更具有合理性。针对我国当前立法对私人不法取证问题规定的空白，应根据权衡理论对私人不法取证进行分类排除。     

论隐性采访所取得的采访资料的证据资格

新闻记者隐瞒自己的身份或意图 ,以“偷拍偷录”的手段进行隐性采访是否合法 ?以此种手段获得采访资料在法律上是否具有作为证据的资格 ?本文针对上述问题进行了详细的分析 ,指出了新闻记者“偷拍偷录”行为的非法性及以此种手段获得的采访资料是一种以非法手段私录的视听资料 ,但只要它与案件的事实具有关联性 ,就应当具有证据资格。     

质询证人证言法则探讨

认定案件事实必须根据合法、真实的证据,如果证据不合法或不真实,不仅无助于查明案情,反而容易误导司法机关,甚至导致冤假错案.证人证言是证据的一种,在诸种法定证据种类中受主客观因素的影响较大,实践中伪证现象的发生并非罕见.为了保证被采纳的证言合法有效、真实可采,在法庭上如何质询证人证言以揭示其不实未尽不合法之处就成为一个值得探讨的课题.     

论录像证据可采的基本法理

录像材料再现案件事实能力的优势和劣势都同样明显,这决定了录像证据有着较为特殊的可采性规则。美国、英国、加拿大和日本的立法例表明,录像证据可采有三个基本法理,即录像证据与录音证据的可采性规则不一致;影响录像证据可采性的特定因素是形式真实性要件;不同表现形式的录像证据可采性规则不同。我国有关录像证据的规定存在诸多问题,应当按照上述法理加以完善。     

The Impact of Daubert on the Admissibility of Forensic Anthropology Expert Testimony

Forensic anthropologists anticipated a significant impact from the 1993 Supreme Court Daubert decision, which addressed the standard of admissibility for expert testimony. In response, many forensic articles cited Daubert in the search for objective techniques or a critique of established subjective methods. This study examines challenges to forensic anthropological expert testimony to evaluate whether Daubert has actually affected the admissibility of such testimony. Thirty cases were identified that addressed the admissibility of the testimony, including 14 cases prior to Daubert and 16 after Daubert. Examination of these cases indicates that post‐Daubert cases do not result in more exclusions. Yet, this lack of exclusions may instead be viewed as a manifestation of the field's overall surge toward more objective and quantifiable techniques in a self‐regulating response to Daubert.     

Development of an instrument for assessing the quality of forensic evidence and expert testimony from three feature-comparison methods: DNA,voice, and fingerprint analysis

In a context of rising violence and long-lasting impunity, in 2008, Mexico's criminal justice system underwent a radical change from an inquisitorial model to an adversarial one, to make it more effective, transparent, and expeditious. The new system tasked judges with publicly determining the admissibility of forensic evidence, as well as assessing its technical quality and probative value—tasks for which they currently receive little to no training. With the aim of contributing to the consolidation of the adversarial model, a comparative framework—in the form of a checklist—of the analysis of fingerprints, DNA samples, and voice recordings was created. To do so, a review of the academic literature, published reports, and guidelines was performed. The collected data were synthesized and submitted to a panel of Mexican judges, who provided feedback on its adequacy. The framework focuses on the steps on which quality assurance of forensic evidence depends, organized in five discrete stages that span from the collection of samples at the scene of a crime to the presentation of evidence at trial, specifying the main technical criteria experts should state to allow a decision maker to examine its accuracy and reliability. Differences and commonalities among the three methods were identified, particularly in terms of how qualitative and quantitative analyses are performed in each. Besides its potential usefulness as an aid for judicial decision-making, the checklist could be a valuable resource for training programs aimed at judges, as well as quality assurance programs.